Improving Street Lighting to Reduce Crime in Residential Areas

Response Guide No. 8 (2008)

Introduction

Improved street lighting is widely thought to be an
effective means of preventing crime, second in importance only to increased
police presence. Indeed, residents in crime-ridden neighborhoods often demand
that the lighting be improved, and recent research generally bears out their
expectation that improved lighting does reduce crime.

This guide is written to help community policing officers
decide whether improved lighting is an appropriate response to a crime or
disorder problem that might be confronting a particular neighborhood or community.
It assumes that a detailed problem analysis has been conducted and that police,
community and business leaders, and other stakeholders are exploring ameliorative
responses, particularly improved street lighting. It explains why better street
lighting can help reduce fear, crime, and disorder, and summarizes the
literature on the effectiveness of better lighting. It discusses the
considerations that should be weighed in pursuing this approach, suggests questions
that should be asked, and lists the steps that should be followed in improving
lighting. Finally, it suggests measures that can be used to assess the
effectiveness of the lighting solutions that have been implemented.

Improved street lighting is much less controversial than
some other responses to street crime discussed in this series of
problem-oriented policing guides, including street closures†
and video surveillance.††
Even so, it does have some potential costs (apart from monetary costs) and, as
will be discussed elsewhere in the guide, its relationship to crime is not as
straightforward as is usually assumed.

Scope of the guide

This guide deals with lighting improvements intended to
reduce crime in public streets and alleys in residential neighborhoods. It does
not discuss:

the lighting of new residential neighborhoods, subdivisions, or gated communities;

improved lighting of parking lots, shopping malls, campuses, hospitals, or other public and private facilities;

security lighting for private residences; or

lighting and road safety.

As explained below, problem-oriented policing projects to
reduce crime in residential neighborhoods have usually made other environmental
changes in conjunction with

improvements in street lighting. In some of these projects
extensive use has been made of the principles of Crime Prevention through
Environmental Design (CPTED). These principles have been explained in another
guide in this series†
and will not be repeated here. This guide focuses solely on street lighting
improvements, whether or not made in the context of broader environmental
changes.

Although led by police, all successful problem-oriented
policing projects in crime-ridden neighborhoods depend upon a partnership among
police, local residents, community leaders, elected officials, and municipal
officers. Police leading the project must invest a considerable amount of time
in making these partnerships work. This guide does not attempt to discuss the
nuances of managing these partnerships, but it does discuss ways of dealing
with concerns that might be expressed about proposed street lighting
improvements.

Because of the lack of relevant research, this guide says
little about the effects of improved lighting on fear. Although there is little
doubt that improved lighting reduces fear, in most cases this is merely an
added benefit from the reduction in crime. Reducing unwarranted fear is a
legitimate objective of lighting improvements in settings such as college
campuses or municipal parking lots. However, it would be difficult to persuade public
officials to spend taxpayer money to improve lighting without the expectation
that both the fear and incidence of crime would be reduced. In fact, according
to research quoted in the New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority How-to Guide to Effective Energy-Efficient Street Lighting for
Municipal Elected/Appointed Officials,1
simply increasing light levels beyond a certain point will neither make
an area seem safer nor increase perceptions of safety. That is, glare and high
light levels that make it harder for people to see can increase fear, whereas uniform
lighting that eliminates both glare and dark shadows can lead to increased
feelings of security.

Again because of the lack of relevant research, this guide
says little about the cost-benefits of improved lighting. It is relatively easy
to estimate the costs of relighting schemes, but calculating the benefits is
much more difficult. This involves estimating the numbers of different types of
crime prevented by the improved lighting and putting a cost to these crimes—not
just cost to the victim but also to the police, the municipality, and the
criminal justice system. It also involves calculating the benefits of reduced
fear, increased freedom of movement, and related factors. Unsurprisingly, no existing
research has undertaken these calculations.

Finally, this guide provides only a brief introduction to
the practicalities of selecting and installing improved lighting. Street
lighting improvements entail many considerations, both in terms of the level
and quality of lighting desired and how these are to be achieved. You can
expect the local utility company or municipal officials to make many of these decisions,
but if you have a basic logistical understanding of the issues you will be able
to provide useful input regarding the needs of your particular neighborhood. And
although experts will commission and supervise the work, you can help by acting
as a liaison between the municipality, the local community, and contractors.
You might also find it necessary to "progress-chase" the work to ensure that
installation does not lag.

How Might Improved Lighting Affect Crime?

In most people's minds, there is a simple and direct relationship
between lighting and crime: better lighting will deter offenders who benefit
from the cover of darkness. Improved lighting means that offenders are more
likely to be seen by someone who might intervene, call the police, or recognize
the offender. Even if this does not happen, some offenders who fear that it might
would be deterred from crime.

However, things are rarely as simple as they first appear. Professor
Ken Pease,2
a crime prevention expert, has explained how improved lighting can have a
variety of different effects on crime. In particular, not only can it sometimes
increase crime, but it can also affect not just nighttime crime, but daylight crime
as well. You should familiarize yourself with all the possible effects he
discusses, which are summarized in Box 1 and Box 2.

Improved lighting deters
potential offenders by increasing the risk that they will be seen or
recognized when committing crimes.

Police become more visible, thus leading to a decision to
desist from crime.

If improved lighting leads to
the arrest and imprisonment of repeat offenders they can no longer commit
crimes in the area.

New lighting can encourage
residents to spend more time on their stoops or in their front yards in the
evenings and thus increase informal surveillance.

Improved lighting can encourage
more people to walk at night, which would increase informal surveillance.

In Daylight

New lighting shows that city
government and the police are determined to control crime. As a result,
potential offenders might no longer
see the neighborhood as affording easy pickings. In additions, citizens might
be motivated to pass on information about offenders.

Better lighting can increase
community pride and cohesiveness,
leading to a greater willingness to intervene in crime and to report it.

If offenders commit crime in
both light and darkness, nighttime arrests and subsequent imprisonment would
reduce both daytime and nighttime crime.

Increased social activity
outside the home in the evenings can increase the number of unoccupied homes
available for burglary.

Increased visibility of
potential victims allows better assessment
of their vulnerability and the value of what they carry. Offenders might more
easily be able to see if parked cars contain valuable items.

Increased visibility allows
better judgment of the proximity of "capable guardians" who might intervene
in crime.

Street
lighting is a situational crime prevention measure that focuses on reducing
opportunity and increasing risk through modification of the physical
environment.

Street
lighting strengthens informal social control and community cohesion through the
promotion of social interaction and investment in neighborhood infrastructure.

† Described by Welsh and Farrington (2007) in a systematic review of the crime- prevention effects of improved lighting undertaken for the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

Some of the effects identified by Pease are more plausible
than others, but his lists can help you in two main ways: (1) they alert you to
the fact that improved lighting might not always lead just to reductions in
nighttime crime, but can sometimes have other results as well and (2) they
alert you to possible arguments that might be used by the supporters and
opponents of improved lighting.

Will Improved Lighting Displace Crime to Nearby Areas?

Pease's hypotheses concern the different ways in which
improved street lighting might affect the neighborhood where it is installed.
But what about nearby neighborhoods? Might not criminals simply commit their
crimes where the lighting is still poor? This phenomenon, known as spatial or
geographical displacement, might seem an obvious result of improved lighting,
but again, matters are not so simple, as is shown by the following.

Research
studies show that displacement occurs much less often than most people, police
included, often assume. For example, a review of 55 studies of displacement
undertaken for the Dutch Ministry of Justice found that displacement occurred
in only 22 instances. When it did occur, it was never complete, so that there was
always a net benefit of the crime prevention measure.3

A
recent U.S. study concluded that street offenders are much more likely to adapt
their methods to the new conditions or to displace their activities to a
different time of the day, rather than to offend elsewhere.4

Rather
than displacement, many recent studies have found that there is diffusion of
benefits to nearby areas. This means that the crime prevention measures have a
beneficial influence beyond the places that they target, perhaps because offenders
are not exactly sure where the crime prevention measures have been introduced. Obviously,
this is much more likely if offenders are not local residents.

For police officers, the main implication of this research is
that although improved street lighting might displace crime into nearby
neighborhoods, it is just as likely to reduce crime in these neighborhoods
because of a diffusion of benefits.

What Do Scientific Evaluations Show?

The discussion above shows just how complicated it can be to
evaluate the effects of improved street lighting. The evaluation must consider
the effects of improved lighting on crimes in daylight hours as well as in
darkness. It must look for both increases and reductions in crime; and not just
for the relit area, but also for a comparable control area where the lighting has
not been improved. It must examine the effect of better lighting on different
kinds of crime, because its effect is not consistent for all types of crime.
And it must examine not just the displacement of crime to nearby areas but also
the possible diffusion of benefits. Finally, the evaluation should consider other
possible benefits of improved lighting, such as reduced fear.

If this were not enough, the most recent review of lighting
studies5
has also noted that:

The effects of improved street lighting are likely to
vary in differ­ent conditions. In particular, they are likely to be greater if
the exist­ing lighting is poor and if the improvement in lighting is considerable.
They may vary according to characteristics of the area or the resi­dents, the
design of the area, the design of the lighting, and the places that are
illuminated. For example, improved lighting may increase community confidence
only in relatively stable homogeneous com­munities, not in areas with a
heterogeneous population mix and high residential mobility. The effects of
improved lighting may also interact with other environmental improvements, such
as closed circuit televi­sion (CCTV) cameras or security patrols.

This means that studies should clearly describe the nature
and intensity of the improvements in lighting, the general neighborhood
conditions, and any other contemporaneous crime prevention measures. Indeed, a
consistent finding of problem-oriented policing projects is that a smart mix of
responses, tailored to the situation, produces the best results.

Few if any published studies meet
all these evaluation requirements; indeed, it would be very difficult to do so.
The principal question examined in most published evaluations is whether street
lighting reduces crime at night. This was the focus of eight studies undertaken
in the United States, seven of them during the 1970s (see Table 1).

Table 1: Eight Street Lighting Evaluations in the United States†

Study

City

Intervention Area

Increase in
Lighting

Other Intervention

Outcome Measure

Follow-up (months)

Effect

Atlanta Regional Com. (1974)

Atlanta, GA

City
center

4
times

None

Crime
(robbery, assault, and burglary)

12

Desirable
effect; no
displacement

DIFL*
(1974)

Milwaukee, WI

Residential
and commercial area

7
times

None

Crime
(property and person categories)

12

Desirable
effect;
some
displacement

Inskeep
and Goff
(1974)

Portland OR

Residential neighborhood (high
crime)

2
times

None

Crime
(robbery, assault, and burglary)

6 or
11

Null
effect; no displacement or diffusion

Wright
et al. (1974)

Kansas
City

Residential
and commercial areas

No
information

None

Crime
(violent and property offenses)

12

Desirable
effect
(for violence); some displacement

Harrisburg P.D.
(1976)

Harrisburg, PA

Residential neighborhood

No
information

None

Crime
(violent and property offenses)

12

Null
effect; no displacement

Sternhell
(1977)

New
Orleans, LA

Residential
and commercial areas

No
information

None

Crime
(burglary, vehicle theft, and assault)

29

Null
effect; no displacement

Lewis
and Sullivan
(1979)

Fort
Worth, TX

Residential neighborhood

3
times

None

Crime
(total)

12

Desirable
effect; possible
displacement

Ouinet
and Nunn
(1998)

Indianapolis, IN

Residential neighborhood

No
information

Police initiatives

Calls
forservice (violent and property crime)

7 to
10

Null
effect; no displacement

* Dept. of Intergovernmental
Fiscal Liaison

† Table adapted from Welsh and Farrington (2007).

Although four of these studies found desirable effects from
improved lighting, the others did not; a review published by the U.S.
Department of Justice of the seven studies undertaken in the 1970s concluded
that improved lighting was not an effective means of preventing crime.†
However, three more recent studies published in the United Kingdom (see Table
2) found significant reductions in crime both in daylight and at nighttime,
with no apparent displacement and in one case, some diffusion of benefits.

† Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Table adapted from Welsh and Farrington (2007).

A recent authoritative review, which used a well-established
methodology to combine the results of all the studies from the United States and the United Kingdom, concluded that improved street lighting led to a "21 percent
decrease in crime compared with comparable control areas."†
Reductions in crime of this amount are worthwhile but, of course, there is no
guarantee that better lighting will reduce crime in your neighborhood.

† Welsh and Farrington (2007, page 8). This percentage improvement might overstate the effect of improved street lighting because their meta-analysis included two studies undertaken in the United Kingdom (not reported in Table 2) that examined the effect of improved lighting in a parking lot and a center city market.

The review could not determine whether these improvements
were the result of situational deterrence or improved community pride and
cohesion. The review concluded that improved street lighting had a larger
effect on property crimes than on violent crimes, but offered no explanation
for this result. More detailed research showing the effect on specific types of
property crime and violent offenses is needed.

What Use Have Police Made of Improved Street Lighting?

The best source of information on the use of improved street
lighting by law enforcement is the collection of project reports submitted for
the Goldstein and the Tilley Awards.†
Although few of these projects focused specifically on improved street lighting,
many projects that have attacked disorder in deprived or rundown neighborhoods
have included improved street lighting in a broad package of crime prevention measures.
The packages often included both environmental improvements such as
neighborhood cleanups (vandalism repair, graffiti removal, tree trimming), and efforts
to improve community cohesion and function. The lighting improvements generally
involved the upgrade or repair of existing lighting in particular street
segments or crime hotspots.

Projects Focused on Crime and Disorder in Deprived, Rundown
Neighborhoods

Two good examples of these types of projects are the Hopwood
Triangle, a finalist for the Goldstein Award in 2004,6
and the New Helvetia and River Oaks Project, a 1996 Goldstein Award winner.7

The Hopwood Triangle is a development of 91 dwellings owned by
the City of Preston, in Lancashire, United Kingdom. Located close to the city
center and two main arterial routes, the development had seen no recent
investment and had slipped into a spiral of decline, with an increase in
damaged properties, burglary, prostitution, and anti­social behavior. It was
proving impossible to rent the vacated dwellings. Remaining tenants were
increasingly apathetic about criminal and antisocial behavior.

The Goldstein Award submission
describes a multi-agency project led by the police that was designed to deliver
sustainable changes and improvements. In partnership with Preston City Council
Central Housing Department, the Parks Department, the Millbank Court, and the local
community, a range of responses were developed over a two-year period, including
the following.

A
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design survey that led to a plan for
physical improvements throughout the development that included improved
lighting

Identification
and eviction of problem tenants

Targeted
enforcement of offenders

Formation
of a Residents Association and a Neighborhood Forum

Establishment
of a "local lettings policy"

Formation
of Neighborhood Watch

Operation
Curb/Safer Sex Works, targeting prostitution

The project produced an overall decline
in crime of 52 percent; in property damage and vandalism of 73 percent; in
burglary of 28 percent; and in vehicle theft and vandalism of 80 percent. Calls
to police declined by 38 percent, with a resultant cost saving to police of £82
($150) per dwelling. In addition, many physical improvements were made to the
development.

The New Helvetia and River Oaks
Project, undertaken in Sacramento, California sought to rehabilitate a downtown
neighborhood consisting of two adjacent public housing projects decimated by gang
and narcotics problems. The population was estimated to be 40 percent juveniles,
with most head of households being single women. In 1991, there were over 1,900
calls for service—about 2.5 calls per household—and over 470 reported crimes,
of which 57 were assaults. Sting operations together with intensive police
presence every night produced more than 140 drug arrests in a six-month period,
but failed to have any significant effect on the problem. In 1992, calls for
service increased again, peaking at over 2,350 for the project area. Despite
these numbers, it was clear that many crimes related to drugs were never
reported.

Two Neighborhood Police Officers
(NPOs) were assigned to the project and given an office in the housing complex.
They undertook an extraordinarily intensive and prolonged effort to bring about
a reduction in the crime problem. They emphasized community involvement, heavy
enforcement, reaching at-risk children, and forming the many partnerships
necessary to gain access to both short-term and long-term resources. Two of the
more significant accomplishments were the formation of the V Team, a program
designed to strengthen the minds and bodies of community youth, and the elimination
of the open-air narcotics market. During the first 40 days of the project, 70 arrests
were made for major narcotics violations; by 1994 police had made more than 500
arrests. Officers seized several cars, thousands of dollars, electronic
equipment, and jewelry as proceeds of drug transactions.

The improved lighting component
included removing heavy growth from existing lighting and poles, repairing all
broken lights, and installing additional sodium lights and light poles. A
resident was then employed to report burned out lights because the housing
authority employees were usually gone before dark.

By the end of 1995, robberies were
down 73 percent, felony assaults were down 74 percent, and narcotic calls were
down 94 percent. During the four years, all calls for service were down 64
percent—a reduction translating into 1,499 fewer calls for service in 1995 than
in 1992. Also reduced were fire department calls (down 36 percent) and
suspensions from the elementary school adjacent to the area (down 85 percent).
By April 1994, a Sacramento Magazine survey of 1,000 members of the
Sacramento Association of Realtors resulted in the area being voted "Most Improved
Neighborhood." A 1995 survey of residents found improved resident satisfaction,
with 80 percent no longer wishing to move from the area.

Projects Whose Main Objective Was to Improve Street Lighting

Isolated examples exist of problem-oriented policing projects
more centrally focused on improved street lighting. One project of this kind, called
Crime Watch Light Partners, was submitted for the Goldstein Award in 2001 by
the Henrico County, Virginia, Division of Police. Involving only one street in Lakeside, populated by 142 homes, it was undertaken in response to resident requests for
improved street lighting to deal with larcenies from autos. The project was led
by a community officer who spent much of his time (141 hours) working out the
details of paying for the street lighting. Streetlights in Henrico County are not installed by the county authorities, but by the local power company,
which at the time charged homeowners $96 or $144 a year per light installed
(depending on lumens). Because this charge was too high for most residents, the
community officer devised a scheme whereby four neighbors would share the cost
of one new light. He succeeded in getting 112 residents to sign up for 30 new streetlights,
which were installed at a substantial saving. Before and after measurements
taken with a light meter showed that street illumination was substantially
improved, but no data were presented concerning the impact of the improved
lighting on crime.

A second project, Gray Street Lights, was submitted for the
Tilley Award in the United Kingdom in 2005. This project was undertaken in
Workington, West Cumbria, and again was mounted to deal with nighttime thefts
from parked cars. Analysis showed that Gray Street was the primary hotspot for
thefts from cars in West Cumbria. The street is approximately 300 yards in
length, with 90 small row houses on either side of the road and several small
businesses at one end. During 2002, 27 thefts from vehicles parked in the
street were reported with an estimated total loss of £5,000 (a little under $9,000).
Most of these thefts occurred on weekend nights. Analysis of the problem
identified poor street lighting as an important contributory cause of the
thefts. Other presumed causes were the lack of private garages and off-street
parking and the fact that the street was a busy pedestrian route after pub
closing time.

The police established that a significant upgrading of the
lights in the street would cost £14,000 (about $24,500) and coordinated a successful
bid for government funds to pay for the lights. These were installed in
December 2003; in 2004, only 6 thefts from cars were reported in the street, at
an estimated cost of £833 (about $1,500). Clearly, this was a significant
improvement from the situation in 2002, before the lights were upgraded. A
survey established that residents believed the new lights had reduced crime and
that they felt safer in the street.

Summing Up

Improved street lighting has rarely been the main objective of
a problem-oriented policing project, but where it has, it seems to have been
effective. In fact, most improvements in lighting have been made in the course
of projects that aimed to rehabilitate deprived and rundown neighborhoods with
serious crime and disorder problems. Because the lighting improvements were usually
a relatively minor part of the project, it is impossible to know what part if
any they played in the claimed reductions in crime or improvements in community
satisfaction-which were often quite spectacular.

What Are the Practicalities
of Improving Lighting?

You will face a number of difficulties in trying to improve
street lighting; the more ambitious your project, the greater these
difficulties will be. Trimming bushes so that lights are more efficient and replacing
damaged or dysfunctional lamps will usually be straightforward, but upgrading
the lighting for an entire neighborhood will entail much more difficulty. You will
have to grapple with cost issues, technical issues relating to different kinds
of lighting, municipal regulatory and zoning schemes, and various objections
raised by residents.

How Much Will It Cost and Who Will Pay?

Cost issues will depend upon who has the responsibility for
installing, maintaining, and paying for lighting in the area. Many or most
municipalities are responsible for street lighting, which is expected to meet
citywide standards in different neighborhoods or districts. In these cases, you
will be relieved of the need to understand most of the complex technical, financial,
and logistical issues of upgrading the lighting. The same is likely to be true
if your area is a public housing project, because physical conditions for U.S.
Housing and Urban Development properties must comply with state and local
codes.

Whatever the regulations governing street lighting, you will
still need to work closely with city officials and engineers to persuade them
of the need to upgrade the lighting in your neighborhood, or at least to accord
priority to the neighborhood. You will need to advise the engineers of the particular
places that need special lighting or lighting of a particular kind, although you
will need to recognize that—even with the best will in the world—engineers will
be limited by lighting standards and budgets†
in what they can do: they have a delicate balancing act to perform in providing
adequate lighting at minimum financial and social cost. Financial decisions must
weigh the costs of installation, maintenance, and electricity. The long-term
costs of electricity are especially important at a time when some smaller towns
are reportedly dimming sections of their streetlights in the face of rising
costs and the pressure to be energy efficient.8
Social costs include the unwelcome effects of glare, light trespass, and light
pollution, which vary with different kinds of lighting (see below).

† A variety of state and federal programs exist that provide funds for qualifying street lighting projects within cities and municipalities, especially for projects that improve energy efficiency (see NYSERDA, 2002). Your help in identifying these sources might be needed.

You will also have to play a part in keeping the project on
track. You should monitor progress closely during the approval and
implementation stages, remembering that you can play an important role as liaison
between the municipality and the utility company to ensure that unnecessary delays
are avoided. However hard you work, you should be prepared for many months to
elapse before the project is complete.

The problems might be different, but equally difficult, if
your area is located in a suburban or predominantly rural area. In these areas,
utility companies sometimes own and maintain the street lighting and under
certain budgetary conditions might pay the initial cost of renewal or improvement
of the street lighting. In some cases, they might be able to recover the cost
from the municipality, but in others they might have to charge residents. This
was the case in the Crime Light Partners project described earlier. As in that
project, the main difficulty lies in obtaining the agreement of residents to
pay for the improved lighting—a difficulty that can be particularly acute in deprived
and rundown neighborhoods where lighting has never been adequate or where it
has severely deteriorated.

Selecting Appropriate Lighting

As a police officer, you cannot be expected to know what
specific type of lighting improvements are needed, nor can you be expected to
know all the various standards and requirements of street lighting. But you
will be able to communicate better with utility companies and the local
engineering department if you have some basic understanding of lighting types and
their properties. These are described below.

Lamp types or bulbs: There are six main kinds of lamps (see Table 3), which vary
in their initial costs, how long they last, how energy efficient they are, and
how well they render color (i.e., the effect of the light produced by the lamp
on the perceived color of objects being viewed).†
Your local utility companies might not supply all these types of bulbs.

Color
rendering: Color rendering refers to the effect of light on the perceived
color of objects. Good color rendering means that most colors are easily
distinguishable and is particularly important when color video cameras are in
use. Color rendering should be distinguished from color appearance, which
refers to the color of the lamp itself.

Optical
control or lighting cut-offs: Optical control refers to the light
distribution of different lighting fixtures, of which there are four main types.

Non-cutoff optics, typically globes, allow light to be
emitted in all directions. Many decorative fixtures are of this type. They are
effective at throwing light up into trees, not onto the ground, and they create
a large amount of light pollution and glare.

Semi-cutoff optics are commonly used in cobra-head style
street lighting. They allow most of the light to shine on the ground, but some
light is thrown upwards. There is significant glare from these fixtures, but
they are often mounted on taller poles to reduce the ill-effects of glare.

Cutoff optics are typically rectangular in shape and
produce more controlled lighting than semi-cutoff: less than 2.5 percent of the
light is allowed to escape upwards. They offer a wider spread of light than a
full-cutoff and are commonly used in parking lots where greater spacing between
poles is desirable.

Full-cutoff optics put light on the ground in a defined,
tight pattern; they do not emit any light upwards. To achieve uniformity of lighting,
more of these fixtures must be used, or they must be mounted higher off the
ground.

Brightness
of lighting: Lighting engineers measure either the brightness (luminance)
or quantity (illuminance) of light at the illuminated object (e.g., the ground)
and also the light emitted from the source (i.e., the lamp).

Candlepower is the luminous intensity of a source of light
in a given direction. Now expressed in candelas, it was formerly measured in
terms of the international candle.

Lumens are the metric unit of luminous flux, i.e., the
time rate of flow of light from a lamp.

Foot-candles are a measurement of the light falling on a
specified surface (e.g., the ground). This is illuminance in lumens per square
foot.

Lux is the metric equivalent of foot-candles: lumens per
square meter.

Candelas (per square foot or per square meter) is a
measurement of brightness or luminance.

Pole
spacing and height of lights: It should be clear from the above that the
cutoff properties of different light fixtures will partly determine the number
and height of street lighting poles that are needed to illuminate a given area.
This in turn has implications for costs and for glare, light trespass, and
light pollution (see below).

Vertical
illumination: Vertical illumination is the measure of light delivered at a
sufficient height from the ground so that people can see the faces of other
pedestrians. Areas suffering from high levels of street crime and robbery
benefit from high values of vertical illuminance.

Glare,
light trespass, and light pollution: Glare, trespass, and pollution are potential
dangers from increased lighting. However, careful selection and design of street
lighting can minimize their effects.

Glare: A well-designed street lighting system directs light to
the road surface and pedestrian areas, but not into the eyes of motorists and
pedestrians. Glare can be minimized through proper fixture selection, pole
placement, and light source selection.

Light Trespass: Unwanted trespass of light falling onto adjacent
properties can lead to complaints from residents. An effective system limits
streetlights from shining light where it is unwanted, such as into windows on
private property.

Light pollution: Light pollution is defined as unwanted light in
the atmosphere that contributes to sky glow. Many localities and states have
passed laws to minimize light pollution, and many more laws are pending. Full
cutoff fixtures that only direct light downwards to the ground have become
popular, although careful design is required to minimize the amount of light
reflected off the ground and into the sky (see box).

Dealing With Objections Raised by Residents and Others

Improvements in street lighting are much less controversial
than are some other crime prevention measures covered in the Response Guides
series, such as street closures9
or the installation of video surveillance cameras or CCTV.10
However, a fact of human nature is that we resist change, and thus even
improvements in street lighting—which carry many benefits—will be resisted by
some community members and public officials.

Residents in your neighborhood. You should expect
some neighborhood residents to oppose proposed improvements to street lighting,
especially if they are expected to contribute to the cost. But you can also expect
a variety of other objections. Some residents might be concerned about glare,
light trespass, and light pollution, particularly if a streetlight is to be
installed close to their homes. Some might be concerned about the disruption,
dirt, and inconvenience that will result from the installation. Others might complain
that improvements in lighting are being used as an unsatisfactory alternative
to increased police patrols. Yet others might see the improved lighting as a
stigmatization of their neighborhood. Finally, some residents involved in
street drug dealing might regard the lighting improvements as an effort by
officials to disrupt their livelihood.†
For obvious reasons, this concern will not be voiced, but it might underlie
opposition based on other grounds.

† In some instances, new lights are shot out by drug dealers or vandals. Shields to guard lights from gunshots can be purchased.

Dealing with these and other resident concerns is an
essential part of consensus building and an essential aspect of your community
policing role. You can try to do this through town meetings, one-on-one
discussions with residents, meetings with local elected officials, and
interviews with the media. Even if the worries seem exaggerated, you must take
them seriously and address them directly. You can be helped in this by the neighborhood
residents association (if one exists), but expect the process to be time consuming.
You might need to meet many times with the association leaders and other
community leaders. These and other meetings should be open to all residents.

Without a residents' association, obtaining a general
agreement can be even more difficult, as there is likely to be no one group or person
who is empowered to make community decisions. You might find local elected
politicians helpful, but beware of self-appointed community leaders who might simply
be pursuing their own agendas.

It is essential that you are well prepared for meetings. You
should present data showing the proportions of crimes of different types
committed by day and by night and be prepared to discuss the limitations of
alternative ways (such as increased patrols) of dealing with these problems.
You will need large maps showing where new lights are needed and where lighting
upgrades are required. You should bring along pictures of the types of lights
you are planning to install. Finally, you will need to be familiar with the
research studies on the effectiveness of improved street lighting and the
findings on displacement and diffusion.

Each meeting should have a written agenda and should
conclude with a review of the proceedings, including what actions have been agreed
upon and who is responsible for implementing them. If possible, you should set
the time and place for the next meeting while everyone is still present. Communicating
a sense of urgency to all the participants is critical to keeping up project momentum.

You must be very open and clear in your approach. At all
costs, avoid giving the impression that all the important decisions have
already been made and that consultation is merely a formality. Be open to
alternative ideas about the placement of new lights or the type of lights to be
installed. Engage stakeholders who are reluctant to participate in the
discussions and consider the needs of resident groups such as children and
teenagers, who might not be adequately represented at the meetings. Finally, it
is very important that you persuade your superiors to let you remain at your post
until negotiations are concluded and an agreement has been reached. The success
of such a process depends on the trust developed between you and the other
stakeholders. Nothing is more fatal to a problem-oriented project than a change
of police leadership at a crucial point.

Nearby neighborhoods: Complaints from residents of
nearby neighborhoods are like to be of two main types. First, residents will
wonder why the lighting in their neighborhoods is not being improved. Second,
residents will express concern that crime and hooliganism will be displaced
into their neighborhoods. These concerns might be publicized by the local media
and echoed by local elected officials. Again, you should meet with residents
and local elected officials to find ways of allaying these concerns. In dealing
with the media, try to involve local elected officials, provided that they
support your proposals. You can be sure that they will welcome the chance to
appear on television or in the newspaper.

City Officials: Local officials will need to be
satisfied that your proposals to improve street lighting are grounded in data
showing that the neighborhood has unusually high rates of crime that can be
reduced by improved lighting. Your task will be much more difficult if
you do not have the support of local elected officials; thus, you will need to plan
carefully to engage their interest and assistance.

Your Checklist of Tasks

There is no published step-by-step
guide on how to improve street lighting to reduce crime, and in any case, every
problem-oriented project is unique. You will therefore have to tailor general
guidelines to your own situation to produce an action plan. Answering the
questions below will help you do this.

The amount of work you
will need to do to personally to ensure the project's completion will depend
crucially on whether the local government supplies a project coordinator: you
should do your best to persuade the responsible officials that a project
coordinator is vital. Impress upon them the need for government oversight and
accountability. You can then work with whoever is appointed, knowing that the
responsibility does not rest entirely on your shoulders.

Analyzing the Problem

Have you clearly defined the
neighborhood boundaries?

Have you collected reliable data
about the types of crime and disorder that are the focus of concern?

Do you know the proportion of
crimes committed by day and by night?

Do you know whether these crimes
are committed by local residents or outsiders?

If outsiders, do you know whether
they go to the neighborhood specifically to commit crimes, or whether they do
so when visiting or passing through?

Can you document that the lighting
in the neighborhood is seriously deficient?

Have you estimated how much crime improved
lighting will prevent?

Have you clear expectations about
how improved lighting can reduce crime? For example, by enabling witnesses to
see offenders and report incidents to the police? Or by raising the fear in the
minds of offenders that this will happen?

Conclusions

It is clear that reductions in crime can be achieved by
improvements in street lighting and that these reductions will be most
worthwhile in high crime neighborhoods. It is also clear that improved lighting
can reduce crime both in the day and at night. This suggests that improvements
to lighting not only act as situational deterrent to crime, but can also
improve local community cohesion and pride, which in turn increases the willingness
of residents to intervene in crime or cooperate with the police. Improved
lighting will also send a message to potential offenders that the neighborhood
no longer offers easy opportunities for crime.

Unfortunately, the available research does not answer every
question a police officer will confront in a project designed to improve
lighting. There is still a considerable need for the exercise of professional
judgment at all stages of such a project, but submissions for the Goldstein and
Tilley awards include many success stories where police have worked together
with communities and local officials to improve lighting.11
Altogether, it can be concluded that when used judiciously "improved street
lighting has few negative effects and clear benefits for law-abiding citizens."12

References

Clarke, R. V.
(2004). Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should You Go Down This Road? Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Series; Response Guides Series No 2.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. [Full text]